![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am not aware of any source that confirms "first manned mission to Mars and other solar system bodies" to be included in the Artemis program. It may deliver some insights that will help with other deep space missions, but Artemis is - as the name implies - about landing on the moon, especially about landing the first woman. -- PM3 ( talk) 05:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I personally think we should use the EM-1 mission patch as a place holder for the actual mission patch since it represents the overall goal a lot better than the explore logo. Once an official patch is released than we can replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Jadebenn and RundownPear: As a potential compromise, would it be acceptable to simply not use any image whatsoever, instead of a patch that doesn't represent the program? I understand there's a thirst for a placeholder, but perhaps if there's no placeholder that won't be misleading or innacurate in some way, maybe it's best to simply leave it be? – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 02:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's just hope we get a proper patch soon. Hopefully this placeholder won't need to be on the page for too long. - Jadebenn ( talk) 22:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple assertions in this section that the SLS variants beyond Block I have been cancelled and are not part of this program. While it is undeniably true that the administration's budget request did contain language ending work on the Exploration Upper Stage (at least, prior to it's most recent incarnation), it is not true that development on the future variants has been stopped, nor is it at all clear that the final version of the budget will retain the administration language halting work on the EUS.
The source cited to back up this claim does not support it. Not only was the article in question released before the formal announcement of the Artemis program, but any mentions of further work being halted on future SLS variants are clearly the author's speculation, not a declaration of fact.
Therefore, I believe the language in question should be removed, unless a reliable source can be found stating that work on SLS variants past Block I has been discontinued. - Jadebenn ( talk) 07:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not think we should include technological milestones in the Missions' table, especially those that are not "missions" but tests performed before Artemis program was created. There will be 37 related launches -actual missions to carry hardware FOR Artemis program, and I see no benefit listing developmental hardware tests from before the program was created, otherwise the list will also incorporate the invention of hydrazine? Parachutes? Radio? They will also be used for Artemis. Rowan Forest ( talk) 19:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The Artemis program calls for a series of commercial launches for launhing gateway sections, lunar landing modules and exploration rovers. NASA has given rough dates for when they want them but no launch provider is given but I feel we should look into putting them in the article and possibly in a different section, i.e. 'commercial unmanned launches' or something along those lines. AndrewRG10 ( talk) 22:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I've re-tooled the section as a prose-and-list section that better describes the program's missions in prose. This is in response to the heavy disagreement over the format of the wikitable in regards to mission descriptions. In addition, missions past Artemis 3 have been removed from the table and described in prose only. Artemis 4 through 8, along with supporting missions, are not officially announced and documented missions, and they are almost certainly subject to heavy change; the plans for the missions may have already been changed from what was leaked by Ars Technica. Sources for the missions are literally non-existent outside the Ars Technica leak as well, and are best described as "plans" in prose that can better convey what would otherwise be repetitious information for mostly similar mission objectives.
Here's a direct quote from Bridenstine himself in a Verge interview published last Friday if you're not convinced; "The direction that we have right now is that the next man and the first woman will be Americans, and that we will land on the south pole of the Moon in 2024. Beyond that we’ve not made any specific decisions..." I've also added an editors note that states "Please do not add proposed missions and/or missions not publicly acknowledged by NASA to this wikitable
" – PhilipTerryGraham (
talk ·
articles ·
reviews)
04:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Rowan Forest: I added some sources in my initial write-up of the "Missions" prose which describe Exploration Flight Test-1 as "key component of the space agency's Mars plan" [1], and part of the "#JourneytoMars" [2]. The post-Constellation program has gone through several interim names during the Obama and Trump administrations before arriving at "Artemis". These include the "Journey to Mars" [3], the "Exploration Campaign" [4], and the "Moon to Mars" program [5]. My original write-up of the article came at a time when it was still the Exploration Campaign / Moon to Mars program [6], so any leftover elements in the article discussing Mars missions is completely my fault, if anything. It's clear that the Artemis program is now specifically focused on the primary objective of establishing a lunar outpost, as you said; however it initially began under the Obama administration as an asteroid reconnaissance and Mars program [7]. I hope I was able to clear Artemis' history up! :) – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 22:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Manabimasu: I see you've made a majority of the columns unsortable, stating that "Duration is only sortable. If this should not be, indicate why." However, this is not an explanation as to why you think these cells shouldn’t be sortable, and I'd like to prod you for some sort of explanation. It would be very convenient for most people to be able to sort missions by their name, launch date, launch site, and launch vehicle. For example, if I wanted to see in convenient blocks which missions launched on an SLS, I can do that by simply sorting the "launch vehicle" table. Similarly, I discussed briefly with Rowan Forest earlier on this talk page when the commercial launches start to appear on the manifest, how one can conveniently sort the mission names column if they wanted to separate the main "Artemis" crewed missions with the uncrewed payload missions supporting them. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 22:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This article has gone back and forth, and contains contradictory statements, about whether Artemis 3 will fly on a Block 1 or 1B SLS. It also contains the patently false statement, "However, the recent budget increase of 1.6 billion dollars towards SLS, Orion, and crewed landers along with the launch manifest seem to indicate support of the development of Block 1B, debuting one year later than expected during Artemis 4." No reference or citation is provided, and NASA did not get the requested $1.6 billion budget increase (or, at least, the appropriations bill which came out of committee didn't include or even mention it.)
Could we remove this incorrect statement, and shift everything to SLS Block 1B. To the best of my knowledge, 1B what it was the last time NASA said anything about it. Also, the leaked graphic on the "predecisional notional schedule" used their SLS 1B icon for Artemis 3. I'll admit that last point is pretty weak. But if there has been a actual change to a SLS Block 1, we should put the reference in as an inline citation. It the change to SLS Block 1 is simply speculation by an editor, we shouldn't include it at all. If it's speculation by some commentator (e.g. Berger on Ars Technica) then it's worth mentioning as a speculation and with a citation.
I'm saying someone could do this, not that I will, since I really think the pace of edits for this article has gotten out of hand. I don't like getting into edits and reedits on a hourly basis. Fcrary ( talk) 19:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking over this article, I think people have been rushing to add the latest news. And doing so without putting in many references and citations. Every statement in a Wikipedia article should be from a verifiable, referenced source and (ideally) cited inline. I see a whole lot of text with no inline citations and quite a bit with no references at all.
The Artemis 3 article is even worse. It's only got three references, and the latest is from October, 2018. Back then, it was a very different mission and not even named Artemis. Despite that, it's full of details about the number of crew members, duration, etc. which NASA hasn't ever specified. In fact, Mr. Bridenstine was criticized for requesting an extra $1.6 billion without providing that level of detail. Subcommittee chair Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK) said, “We have a White House directive to land humans on the Moon in five years, but no plan, and no budget details on how to do so... In essence, we’re flying blind.” I really should mention that on the Artemis 3 rather than the Artemis program talk page, but it looks like the same editors follow both.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a newspaper. The idea is for the content to be referenced and verifiable, not hot off the press. And definitely not speculation by the editors or some rumor they heard. I'd try to fix some of this, but we're at over a dozen edits per day. That feels like a feeding frenzy to me, and I don't want to get too deep into it. Fcrary ( talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Why does Exploration program and Exploration missions redirect here? Is this WP:CONCISE? I recommend the redirects be changed to a proper article and the hatnote that indicated this be deleted. Unless there is a reason, I am unaware of. Thoughts? Manabimasu ( talk) 23:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Space exploration should be put in Artemis program#See also. Manabimasu ( talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The synthesis in this page is too much implying that Artemis is a "continuation" of already cancelled programs. Artemis was just created in 2017 (name revealed recently) from a presidential mandate and has launched NOTHING yet, yet these guys keep entering one successful Artemis lunar mission already accomplished! and that it was created in 2011. The fact is that the Constellation program and Asteroid Redirect Mission are cancelled programs, and NONE of them called for a permanent lunar surface presence. Whatever grassroots technology has been developed (SLS boosters, escape engines, solar electric propulsion, crewed capsule, hydrazine, the wheel, etc.) previous to Artemis, does not push the creation of Artemis program back to that event. Rowan Forest ( talk) 14:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It makes no logical sense to say EFT-1 was part of Artemis before Artemis actually existed. Nor does it make sense to say that Artemis is just a new name for the older program. The goals, plans and schedule are radically different. You'd have to claim that the "program" under various names, is to do some, unspecified things involving SLS, Orion, Gateway and astronauts. That's not a "program" in the sense most people would understand it when reading the article. Fcrary ( talk) 19:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Something like this in a separate section:
Mission | Patch | Launch | Crew | Launch vehicle [a] | Duration |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ares I-X |
![]() |
October 28, 2009 15:30 UTC | — | Ares I-X | ~8 minutes |
Pad Abort Test 1 |
![]() |
|
— | Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) | 95 seconds |
EFT-1 | ![]() |
|
— |
|
4h, 24m |
AA-2 | ![]() |
|
— | Orion Abort Test Booster | ~3m |
Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
We keep going back and fourth on when Artemis started. 2019, 2011, 2017? I think we should come to a firm decision on a date and leave it like that rather than going back and fourth. I am in favor of 2017 being the start of the program since it is when Space Policy Directive 1 was signed into action. Any opinions? RundownPear ( talk) 14:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I made some major changes to the lander sections? Currently, for the robotic landers, we have a lengthy description of Draper's Artemis-7, and no mention that there are eight other companies NASA has selected as qualified to bid on contracts. The crew lander section has a long description of the Lockheed Martin concept, one sentence on the Blue Origin lander, a mention of SpaceX and nothing on the other eight companies who got study contracts. I'd like to pull the descriptions of a single company's lander, replace them with a list of all the companies' involved, and put in links to detailed descriptions where the articles exist. As it reads, it's almost as if Draper is the only robotic lander provider and LMA is virtually the only one working on crew landers. Oh, and we need to say something about "Artemis-7", that the name predates the program being named "Artemis" and that the coincidental use of the same name doesn't mean NASA has settled on that particular lander. Fcrary ( talk) 19:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a section with details on the PPE under the gateway section. It is very instrumental to the Artemis program and i feel like a short brief paragraph detailing its interesting purpose and history would be a good contribution. I am checking because i don't want to write the whole thing only to have it removed. Thoughts? RundownPear ( talk) 23:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this a while, and I don't really see the relevance of keeping it in this section, other than the fact that it's on the main Orion article. While all the other listed tests have tested the Orion spacecraft, which is relevant to the Artemis program and lunar exploration campaign, I don't think Ares I-X had anything to do with the development of Orion, other than the fact they were (at the time) part of the same program. I don't want to just outright remove it without consensus, though. - Jadebenn ( talk) 06:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Artemis program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "report":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The title says about it.
—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What about Atlas V? Can I replace the "Delta IV Heavy" with "ULA launch vehicles" in the infobox?
—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 12:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There is as of this week (20 July 2019) -- the week of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing -- a new logo for the Artemis space program.
Since I am too old (although working with computers since 1969) to properly download this image from NASA into your new formatting system, I trust that somebody else at "Wikipedia" can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bastedo ( talk • contribs)
The word "Artemis" is printed three times at the top of the article – as the title of the article, the heading of {{ Infobox space program}}, and in bold font in the article's opening sentence. To avoid repetition, I think it'd be ideal to present the emblem of the Artemis program without a wordmark, much like how we presently present the logo on Project Mercury without its wordmark. Not only does it resolve repetition, it also simply looks better in {{ Infobox space program}} from a design standpoint. Pinging 5Ept5xW, Jadebenn, mfb, and Soumya-8974 as recent major contributors to the article. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 16:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There's been a argument over the past few months over the status of Exploration Flight Test-1 – whether or not it should be considered part of the same manifest of missions since Space Policy Directive-1 re-scoped the program in 2017. I've recently found sources, prompted by other editors' suggestions of an "Orion program", that not only did an Orion program consisting the EFT-1/ AA-2/ EM-1/ EM-2 ect. manifest that the Artemis program has today indeed exist, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] the program apparently still exists today, with the manifest still considered part of the program. [5] [6] [7] [8] This essentially means missions such as Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 are missions in both the Artemis and Orion programs, while EFT-1 was only in the Orion program. This is basically our solution to the kerfuffle, but it now poses a really huge problem – how to reword and tweak the Artemis program, Orion (spacecraft), and related articles accordingly with these facts. I've been thinking of creating an Orion program article, though it hinges on my unsourced and educated guess that perhaps Artemis is simply a sub-program of Orion, much like how the Discovery and New Frontiers programs are part of the Planetary Missions program – Artemis is the lunar campaign, and the Orion program will continue to explore Mars and other targets with succeeding sub-programs. If we could find sources to either prove or disprove that this is how the Orion and Artemis programs are structured relative to each other, we'd be able to have a much clearer picture of how we treat these articles going forward. Better sources on the nature of the Orion program, such as its objectives separate from those of the Artemis program, would also be valuable. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 06:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Jadebenn as recent major contributor to the article, and Soumya-8974 and Koplins, who both seem to have some sort of knowledge about the current Artemis missions as they existed pre-2017. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 19:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Also pinging RundownPear who had previously made reference to the Orion program in previous discussions. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 21:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Commercial launchers might launch the PPE and other modules, and resupply the Gateway, but those are not Artemis missions, so that information belongs to the Gateway article. If it was to stay, it needs a lot of crafting to clarify they are not Artemis missions/Launchers, just support to the Gateway, like the CLPS flights support Artemis. Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Pending the recovery of the proper version of the "List of Artemis missions" page, the "Flight"/"Missions" section should ideally be rewritten as a summary, along the summary style guidelines, with a {{ Main article}} hatnote link. Perhaps we could shave off tables for non-Artemis and proposed missions and leave Artemis 1, 2, and 3, much in the same way the Apollo program article lists only the flights of the Apollo CSM/LM? I'm sure some of you guys would love to finally jettison the non-Artemis Orion tests from this section! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 01:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Mission | Patch | Launch | Crew | Launch vehicle [b] | Outcome | Duration |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pad Abort-1 | ![]() |
|
— | Orion Launch Abort System | Success | 95 seconds |
Exploration Flight Test-1 | ![]() |
|
— |
|
Success | 4 hours 24 minutes |
Ascent Abort-2 | ![]() |
|
— | Orion Abort Test Booster | Success | 3 minutes 13 seconds |
Artemis 1 | ![]() |
— | SLS Block 1 Crew | Planned | ~25 days |
References
After reading NASA Moon and Mars, I realized that the Artemis program is a subsidiary of Moon to Mars program. Any thoughts? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( contributions • subpages) 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a section detailing the backlash and arguments against Artemis as well as some alternative directions people have proposed (2028 timeline, phasing out SLS or the Gateway) We could detail the lack of public support and how it competes with the Mars initiative. Just a thought that might be interesting to add. Yours truly, RundownPear ( talk) 16:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I have made a "Criticism" section and the text are abridged from the LOP-G article. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Soumya-8974: The Gateway will be re-supplied by commercial cargo resupply vehicles (capsules). Whether they select the Dragon Cargo, or whatever robotic resupply vehicles (capsules), the Artemis Program will definitely purchase rocket services to launch them. Rowan Forest ( talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that was my fault, I was sick then... —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 10:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like NASA's Artemis 2024 program just died in the U.S. House. "It is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028," Chair Jose Serrano says, noting that would allow for a successful, safe, and cost effective lunar landing program.. We'll need to wait for a better source but this can change a lot. -- mfb ( talk) 02:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
When you search Artemis or Artemis Program, a wikipedia info box appears but it lists Artemis' first flight in 2024 rather than 2023. How do we fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we have enough information about the crewed landers and suggest we start to create sections for each lander (so far Boeing lander and Blue Origin / Northrop Grumman Lander and Lockheed Lander if they officially submit it's design) We should also maybe rename the section "Human Landing System" since that seems to be NASA's term for the vehicle. -- RundownPear ( talk) 14:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Recent NASA promotional material shows and describes Artemis 2 as a orbital crewed mission. I know in the past it's gone from orbital to free return but have they made a final decision yet? It could be a stupid mistake but it is on the NASA Artemis page so it seems like it wouldn't be overlooked.-- RundownPear ( talk) 18:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Every day we hear more about the missions and hardware that may be involved. From different types of nuclear power that could be used on the surface to the pressurized rover that was mentioned in depth recently, maybe it's time we create an "additional hardware" section or something. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: @ Mattise135: @ Fcrary: @ Hektor: Hello. There have been changes in Wikipedia on the numbering format switching from Arabic to Roman numerals. Lets discuss the issue and reach a consensus before it devolves and page moves are done unilaterally.
The homepage of the Artemis program does not use Roman numerals [4], and their page was updated on Aug. 8, 2019. Where is this new push changing the numerals is coming from? If some NASA publications use both Arabic and Roman numerals interchangeably, what will Wikipedia use and why? Thanks, -- Rowan Forest ( talk) 18:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am supporting to use Arabic numerals in the formal contexts. -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 13:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not "official" since there has been no official statement about it, and probably never will. The Gemini and Apollo missions also used inconsistent numerals originally, and it looks classy in a mission patch, yet the related Wikipedia articles use Arabic numerals. I found no discussion about it in those pages or at the WP Spaceflight Project archives. I assume it is because for the general public, Arabic numerals are obvious and unambiguous for this encyclopedia. To be clear, I am not against it, but if it is going to be switched, there has to be a reason stronger than someone's perception (including mine). Rowan Forest ( talk) 14:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks like NASA is now consistently using Roman numerals in official sources. I'd prefer to stick with Arabic numerals on the wiki pages for reasons of readability and familiarity, but there's now a genuine argument in support of changing them. Thoughts? - Jadebenn ( talk) 08:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
So, which is crewed and which is uncrewed. Everything I've seen is that Artemis 7 would be an uncrewed 1b flight with the lunar outpost and 8 would be the corresponding crew, but apparently that isn't right. Anyone know for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The Artemis logo recreation used for the image for this Wikipedia page has a noticeable error in it. The Recreation Used: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Artemis_program_%28contrast_wordmark%29.svg/1024px-Artemis_program_%28contrast_wordmark%29.svg.png Offical Logo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Artemis_identity_moon_mars.jpg Despite the Colours being flattened in the recreation, The one difference i'd like to point out is the lack of the gap between the upper part of the red streak on the left side and the A, the other gap on the logo is present on the recreation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woog24 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I had added some references to the DST in the SLS and proposed missions sections. So far it is unclear whether the DST would be part of Artemis or not but it definitely relies on infrastructure set up by the program such as the Gateway, Orion, SLS, and Ion drives being developed for lunar operation. I think its appropriate to keep the reference in the proposed section since it would line up with the amount of SLS rockets NASA is going order but I suppose ti should be kept out of the main article, any input? -- RundownPear ( talk) 14:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I always thought it was weird that HERACLES is mentioned in the article. I understand that the mission would utilize the Gateway and Orion but is it still happening? I can't find anything about it still being a sample return. I've seen articles about it being repurposed as a cargo lander for a pressurized moon rover. Perhaps it's time we did a little HERACLES overhaul?-- RundownPear ( talk) 13:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The article now has a whole new section on the "Moon Mission 2024 Manifest". It isn't referenced, and the only things we really know is that Eric Berger at Ars Technica reported it, basically as an unsourced rumor, and that at least three NASA officials (NASA's press secretary, Administrator and Associate Administrator for Human Exploration) have all said that this manifest is not correct and does not represent the agency's plans for Artemis. Isn't putting this in the Wikipedia article a little premature? Or, at least, putting it in without lots and lots of text warning readers that it probably isn't reliable information? Fcrary ( talk) 23:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Doug Loverro, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, has stated that they are phasing the Gateway out of the initial 2024 mission. This obviously changes a lot. The new plan is to start assembling it in 2026 to allocate more money towards the HLS. Should we wait for the official plan coming in the "near future", or should we start to change the article now. -- RundownPear ( talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The White House mandated a return to the lunar surface by 2024, but the rocket and spacecraft NASA plans to use to get astronauts to the moon has been plagued by oversight and performance issues; the Mission could cost $50 billion.
X1\ ( talk) 06:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The article states that there were some plans, as of mid-2019, for the Moon Cruiser to be built by European nation states by c. 2025. No secondary sources since show this is active and funded, although it exists on the contractors primary source webpage? Have we got anything that shows this is more than talk-talk, like so many spaceflight-related conceptual designs. They loom large in their proposers (aspirational) plans; but often fail in finding full funding to get built and tested. What is the current status of the funding and plans for Moon Cruiser, from the ESA's point of view? Any current sources that show that? N2e ( talk) 04:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
So to discuss what someone brought up on the page I think the number of EUS stages is somewhat relevant since the mission profile drastically changes if the Orion is on a CPS or EUS. Also should we add commercial vehicles launching payloads like Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, New Glenn, etc...? -- RundownPear ( talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Ken Bowersox (acting human spaceflight head at NASA) made a presentation to the National Academy of Science/Engineering's "Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Joint Spring Meeting 2020" on 8-11 June 2020. Some of the Artemis material was new, hadn't seen before. Includes a two-slide graphic of the overall Artemis roadmap as it exists in mid-2020, and several slides summarizing the current Artemis HLS design project team's designs. As its from NASA, that stuff is usually public domain so can be used to improve the article. Here's the link to the NAS web page with Ken Bowersox pdf of presentation slides. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 11:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The current table displays any HLS related contract with either accepted or rejected. A lot of the info were simply studies that were funded yet not continued. The only really rejected concepts were for the full HLS systems including Boeing and some Italian company I don't remember. I will try and play around with it a bit and divide it into a study table and actual HLS table. Any input? RundownPear ( talk) 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A potential source : Artemis Plan - NASA's Lunar Exploration Program Overview. Hektor ( talk) 11:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking a partners section with a chart showing the nations participating and what they are contributing. I think that could be good rather than going through the whole article and piecing it together. -- RundownPear ( talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The video is created by NASA and is from their YouTube channel. The video is really helpful if anybody wants a quick summary of the project. I don't know if adding this video will clutter the page, if you are one of the author of the article please watch the video and add it if you think it will be a valuable addition. Thanks -- Eatcha 11:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I changed the initial launch date of the Artemis program from 2021 to 2017 due to error in the title section. In the history section it explained that it started in 2017 with the signing of Space Policy Directive 1 signed by President Trump. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eth132489 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
There won't be separate ascent/descent/transfer elements, Starship is a single entity. There will be refueling flights for Starship in Earth orbit, however. -- mfb ( talk) 09:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the information in the HLS table for the "National Team" and "Dynetics" to accurately reflect the selection of those two consortia for nearly $1 billion of NASA funding, even though they were not selected in the downselect announced in April 2021. The info is good.
The color is odd. I just left the color the same as it was previously, when the incorrect information "Not selected" was input into the table.
If anyone knows how to fix wiki table colors, have at it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The current state of the article reflects the state of the Artemis program as seen from the outside: a loose and incoherent collection of legacy projects with only a vague overall plan. The reader cannot tell how an astronaut will get from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon and back, which is more or less the first stated goal of the project. I'm an outsider, so I'm not sure exactly how it's supposed to work, which means I probably cannot write a coherent overview section. What needs to happen, in what order, to "land a crew on the on the moon and safely return them, before 2025?" What other elements of Artemis are underway but that do not (much) contribute to this goal?) What is a good set of references for this? - Arch dude ( talk) 15:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed the 3 December 2020 line from the CLPS table. It was unreferenced and also not mentioned in the text. I found a ref for the contracts, [8] but it does not mention CLPS. If we do need to put it back in, we need all 5 contracts, not just one. - Arch dude ( talk) 17:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Space suits section needs update for mid 2021 GAO concerns about schedule, cost, and how NASA is managing the work. - Rod57 ( talk) 10:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The HLS section is big and is getting messy, and it will be getting bigger. It needs to be reorganized in any event, but I would prefer to split it out and then reorganize it. Like most of this article and most of the space articles about current programs, it is currently bogged down in contract details and history instead of providing the user with a crisp description of the technology and the mission. - Arch dude ( talk) 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, I split it out. - Arch dude ( talk) 03:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am not aware of any source that confirms "first manned mission to Mars and other solar system bodies" to be included in the Artemis program. It may deliver some insights that will help with other deep space missions, but Artemis is - as the name implies - about landing on the moon, especially about landing the first woman. -- PM3 ( talk) 05:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I personally think we should use the EM-1 mission patch as a place holder for the actual mission patch since it represents the overall goal a lot better than the explore logo. Once an official patch is released than we can replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Jadebenn and RundownPear: As a potential compromise, would it be acceptable to simply not use any image whatsoever, instead of a patch that doesn't represent the program? I understand there's a thirst for a placeholder, but perhaps if there's no placeholder that won't be misleading or innacurate in some way, maybe it's best to simply leave it be? – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 02:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's just hope we get a proper patch soon. Hopefully this placeholder won't need to be on the page for too long. - Jadebenn ( talk) 22:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple assertions in this section that the SLS variants beyond Block I have been cancelled and are not part of this program. While it is undeniably true that the administration's budget request did contain language ending work on the Exploration Upper Stage (at least, prior to it's most recent incarnation), it is not true that development on the future variants has been stopped, nor is it at all clear that the final version of the budget will retain the administration language halting work on the EUS.
The source cited to back up this claim does not support it. Not only was the article in question released before the formal announcement of the Artemis program, but any mentions of further work being halted on future SLS variants are clearly the author's speculation, not a declaration of fact.
Therefore, I believe the language in question should be removed, unless a reliable source can be found stating that work on SLS variants past Block I has been discontinued. - Jadebenn ( talk) 07:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not think we should include technological milestones in the Missions' table, especially those that are not "missions" but tests performed before Artemis program was created. There will be 37 related launches -actual missions to carry hardware FOR Artemis program, and I see no benefit listing developmental hardware tests from before the program was created, otherwise the list will also incorporate the invention of hydrazine? Parachutes? Radio? They will also be used for Artemis. Rowan Forest ( talk) 19:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The Artemis program calls for a series of commercial launches for launhing gateway sections, lunar landing modules and exploration rovers. NASA has given rough dates for when they want them but no launch provider is given but I feel we should look into putting them in the article and possibly in a different section, i.e. 'commercial unmanned launches' or something along those lines. AndrewRG10 ( talk) 22:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I've re-tooled the section as a prose-and-list section that better describes the program's missions in prose. This is in response to the heavy disagreement over the format of the wikitable in regards to mission descriptions. In addition, missions past Artemis 3 have been removed from the table and described in prose only. Artemis 4 through 8, along with supporting missions, are not officially announced and documented missions, and they are almost certainly subject to heavy change; the plans for the missions may have already been changed from what was leaked by Ars Technica. Sources for the missions are literally non-existent outside the Ars Technica leak as well, and are best described as "plans" in prose that can better convey what would otherwise be repetitious information for mostly similar mission objectives.
Here's a direct quote from Bridenstine himself in a Verge interview published last Friday if you're not convinced; "The direction that we have right now is that the next man and the first woman will be Americans, and that we will land on the south pole of the Moon in 2024. Beyond that we’ve not made any specific decisions..." I've also added an editors note that states "Please do not add proposed missions and/or missions not publicly acknowledged by NASA to this wikitable
" – PhilipTerryGraham (
talk ·
articles ·
reviews)
04:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Rowan Forest: I added some sources in my initial write-up of the "Missions" prose which describe Exploration Flight Test-1 as "key component of the space agency's Mars plan" [1], and part of the "#JourneytoMars" [2]. The post-Constellation program has gone through several interim names during the Obama and Trump administrations before arriving at "Artemis". These include the "Journey to Mars" [3], the "Exploration Campaign" [4], and the "Moon to Mars" program [5]. My original write-up of the article came at a time when it was still the Exploration Campaign / Moon to Mars program [6], so any leftover elements in the article discussing Mars missions is completely my fault, if anything. It's clear that the Artemis program is now specifically focused on the primary objective of establishing a lunar outpost, as you said; however it initially began under the Obama administration as an asteroid reconnaissance and Mars program [7]. I hope I was able to clear Artemis' history up! :) – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 22:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Manabimasu: I see you've made a majority of the columns unsortable, stating that "Duration is only sortable. If this should not be, indicate why." However, this is not an explanation as to why you think these cells shouldn’t be sortable, and I'd like to prod you for some sort of explanation. It would be very convenient for most people to be able to sort missions by their name, launch date, launch site, and launch vehicle. For example, if I wanted to see in convenient blocks which missions launched on an SLS, I can do that by simply sorting the "launch vehicle" table. Similarly, I discussed briefly with Rowan Forest earlier on this talk page when the commercial launches start to appear on the manifest, how one can conveniently sort the mission names column if they wanted to separate the main "Artemis" crewed missions with the uncrewed payload missions supporting them. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 22:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This article has gone back and forth, and contains contradictory statements, about whether Artemis 3 will fly on a Block 1 or 1B SLS. It also contains the patently false statement, "However, the recent budget increase of 1.6 billion dollars towards SLS, Orion, and crewed landers along with the launch manifest seem to indicate support of the development of Block 1B, debuting one year later than expected during Artemis 4." No reference or citation is provided, and NASA did not get the requested $1.6 billion budget increase (or, at least, the appropriations bill which came out of committee didn't include or even mention it.)
Could we remove this incorrect statement, and shift everything to SLS Block 1B. To the best of my knowledge, 1B what it was the last time NASA said anything about it. Also, the leaked graphic on the "predecisional notional schedule" used their SLS 1B icon for Artemis 3. I'll admit that last point is pretty weak. But if there has been a actual change to a SLS Block 1, we should put the reference in as an inline citation. It the change to SLS Block 1 is simply speculation by an editor, we shouldn't include it at all. If it's speculation by some commentator (e.g. Berger on Ars Technica) then it's worth mentioning as a speculation and with a citation.
I'm saying someone could do this, not that I will, since I really think the pace of edits for this article has gotten out of hand. I don't like getting into edits and reedits on a hourly basis. Fcrary ( talk) 19:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking over this article, I think people have been rushing to add the latest news. And doing so without putting in many references and citations. Every statement in a Wikipedia article should be from a verifiable, referenced source and (ideally) cited inline. I see a whole lot of text with no inline citations and quite a bit with no references at all.
The Artemis 3 article is even worse. It's only got three references, and the latest is from October, 2018. Back then, it was a very different mission and not even named Artemis. Despite that, it's full of details about the number of crew members, duration, etc. which NASA hasn't ever specified. In fact, Mr. Bridenstine was criticized for requesting an extra $1.6 billion without providing that level of detail. Subcommittee chair Rep. Kendra Horn (D-OK) said, “We have a White House directive to land humans on the Moon in five years, but no plan, and no budget details on how to do so... In essence, we’re flying blind.” I really should mention that on the Artemis 3 rather than the Artemis program talk page, but it looks like the same editors follow both.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a newspaper. The idea is for the content to be referenced and verifiable, not hot off the press. And definitely not speculation by the editors or some rumor they heard. I'd try to fix some of this, but we're at over a dozen edits per day. That feels like a feeding frenzy to me, and I don't want to get too deep into it. Fcrary ( talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Why does Exploration program and Exploration missions redirect here? Is this WP:CONCISE? I recommend the redirects be changed to a proper article and the hatnote that indicated this be deleted. Unless there is a reason, I am unaware of. Thoughts? Manabimasu ( talk) 23:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Space exploration should be put in Artemis program#See also. Manabimasu ( talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The synthesis in this page is too much implying that Artemis is a "continuation" of already cancelled programs. Artemis was just created in 2017 (name revealed recently) from a presidential mandate and has launched NOTHING yet, yet these guys keep entering one successful Artemis lunar mission already accomplished! and that it was created in 2011. The fact is that the Constellation program and Asteroid Redirect Mission are cancelled programs, and NONE of them called for a permanent lunar surface presence. Whatever grassroots technology has been developed (SLS boosters, escape engines, solar electric propulsion, crewed capsule, hydrazine, the wheel, etc.) previous to Artemis, does not push the creation of Artemis program back to that event. Rowan Forest ( talk) 14:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It makes no logical sense to say EFT-1 was part of Artemis before Artemis actually existed. Nor does it make sense to say that Artemis is just a new name for the older program. The goals, plans and schedule are radically different. You'd have to claim that the "program" under various names, is to do some, unspecified things involving SLS, Orion, Gateway and astronauts. That's not a "program" in the sense most people would understand it when reading the article. Fcrary ( talk) 19:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Something like this in a separate section:
Mission | Patch | Launch | Crew | Launch vehicle [a] | Duration |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ares I-X |
![]() |
October 28, 2009 15:30 UTC | — | Ares I-X | ~8 minutes |
Pad Abort Test 1 |
![]() |
|
— | Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) | 95 seconds |
EFT-1 | ![]() |
|
— |
|
4h, 24m |
AA-2 | ![]() |
|
— | Orion Abort Test Booster | ~3m |
Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
We keep going back and fourth on when Artemis started. 2019, 2011, 2017? I think we should come to a firm decision on a date and leave it like that rather than going back and fourth. I am in favor of 2017 being the start of the program since it is when Space Policy Directive 1 was signed into action. Any opinions? RundownPear ( talk) 14:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I made some major changes to the lander sections? Currently, for the robotic landers, we have a lengthy description of Draper's Artemis-7, and no mention that there are eight other companies NASA has selected as qualified to bid on contracts. The crew lander section has a long description of the Lockheed Martin concept, one sentence on the Blue Origin lander, a mention of SpaceX and nothing on the other eight companies who got study contracts. I'd like to pull the descriptions of a single company's lander, replace them with a list of all the companies' involved, and put in links to detailed descriptions where the articles exist. As it reads, it's almost as if Draper is the only robotic lander provider and LMA is virtually the only one working on crew landers. Oh, and we need to say something about "Artemis-7", that the name predates the program being named "Artemis" and that the coincidental use of the same name doesn't mean NASA has settled on that particular lander. Fcrary ( talk) 19:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add a section with details on the PPE under the gateway section. It is very instrumental to the Artemis program and i feel like a short brief paragraph detailing its interesting purpose and history would be a good contribution. I am checking because i don't want to write the whole thing only to have it removed. Thoughts? RundownPear ( talk) 23:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this a while, and I don't really see the relevance of keeping it in this section, other than the fact that it's on the main Orion article. While all the other listed tests have tested the Orion spacecraft, which is relevant to the Artemis program and lunar exploration campaign, I don't think Ares I-X had anything to do with the development of Orion, other than the fact they were (at the time) part of the same program. I don't want to just outright remove it without consensus, though. - Jadebenn ( talk) 06:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Artemis program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "report":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The title says about it.
—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What about Atlas V? Can I replace the "Delta IV Heavy" with "ULA launch vehicles" in the infobox?
—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 12:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There is as of this week (20 July 2019) -- the week of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing -- a new logo for the Artemis space program.
Since I am too old (although working with computers since 1969) to properly download this image from NASA into your new formatting system, I trust that somebody else at "Wikipedia" can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bastedo ( talk • contribs)
The word "Artemis" is printed three times at the top of the article – as the title of the article, the heading of {{ Infobox space program}}, and in bold font in the article's opening sentence. To avoid repetition, I think it'd be ideal to present the emblem of the Artemis program without a wordmark, much like how we presently present the logo on Project Mercury without its wordmark. Not only does it resolve repetition, it also simply looks better in {{ Infobox space program}} from a design standpoint. Pinging 5Ept5xW, Jadebenn, mfb, and Soumya-8974 as recent major contributors to the article. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 16:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There's been a argument over the past few months over the status of Exploration Flight Test-1 – whether or not it should be considered part of the same manifest of missions since Space Policy Directive-1 re-scoped the program in 2017. I've recently found sources, prompted by other editors' suggestions of an "Orion program", that not only did an Orion program consisting the EFT-1/ AA-2/ EM-1/ EM-2 ect. manifest that the Artemis program has today indeed exist, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] the program apparently still exists today, with the manifest still considered part of the program. [5] [6] [7] [8] This essentially means missions such as Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 are missions in both the Artemis and Orion programs, while EFT-1 was only in the Orion program. This is basically our solution to the kerfuffle, but it now poses a really huge problem – how to reword and tweak the Artemis program, Orion (spacecraft), and related articles accordingly with these facts. I've been thinking of creating an Orion program article, though it hinges on my unsourced and educated guess that perhaps Artemis is simply a sub-program of Orion, much like how the Discovery and New Frontiers programs are part of the Planetary Missions program – Artemis is the lunar campaign, and the Orion program will continue to explore Mars and other targets with succeeding sub-programs. If we could find sources to either prove or disprove that this is how the Orion and Artemis programs are structured relative to each other, we'd be able to have a much clearer picture of how we treat these articles going forward. Better sources on the nature of the Orion program, such as its objectives separate from those of the Artemis program, would also be valuable. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 06:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Jadebenn as recent major contributor to the article, and Soumya-8974 and Koplins, who both seem to have some sort of knowledge about the current Artemis missions as they existed pre-2017. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 19:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Also pinging RundownPear who had previously made reference to the Orion program in previous discussions. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 21:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Commercial launchers might launch the PPE and other modules, and resupply the Gateway, but those are not Artemis missions, so that information belongs to the Gateway article. If it was to stay, it needs a lot of crafting to clarify they are not Artemis missions/Launchers, just support to the Gateway, like the CLPS flights support Artemis. Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Pending the recovery of the proper version of the "List of Artemis missions" page, the "Flight"/"Missions" section should ideally be rewritten as a summary, along the summary style guidelines, with a {{ Main article}} hatnote link. Perhaps we could shave off tables for non-Artemis and proposed missions and leave Artemis 1, 2, and 3, much in the same way the Apollo program article lists only the flights of the Apollo CSM/LM? I'm sure some of you guys would love to finally jettison the non-Artemis Orion tests from this section! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 01:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Mission | Patch | Launch | Crew | Launch vehicle [b] | Outcome | Duration |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pad Abort-1 | ![]() |
|
— | Orion Launch Abort System | Success | 95 seconds |
Exploration Flight Test-1 | ![]() |
|
— |
|
Success | 4 hours 24 minutes |
Ascent Abort-2 | ![]() |
|
— | Orion Abort Test Booster | Success | 3 minutes 13 seconds |
Artemis 1 | ![]() |
— | SLS Block 1 Crew | Planned | ~25 days |
References
After reading NASA Moon and Mars, I realized that the Artemis program is a subsidiary of Moon to Mars program. Any thoughts? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( contributions • subpages) 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a section detailing the backlash and arguments against Artemis as well as some alternative directions people have proposed (2028 timeline, phasing out SLS or the Gateway) We could detail the lack of public support and how it competes with the Mars initiative. Just a thought that might be interesting to add. Yours truly, RundownPear ( talk) 16:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I have made a "Criticism" section and the text are abridged from the LOP-G article. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Soumya-8974: The Gateway will be re-supplied by commercial cargo resupply vehicles (capsules). Whether they select the Dragon Cargo, or whatever robotic resupply vehicles (capsules), the Artemis Program will definitely purchase rocket services to launch them. Rowan Forest ( talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that was my fault, I was sick then... —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 10:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like NASA's Artemis 2024 program just died in the U.S. House. "It is better to use the original NASA schedule of 2028," Chair Jose Serrano says, noting that would allow for a successful, safe, and cost effective lunar landing program.. We'll need to wait for a better source but this can change a lot. -- mfb ( talk) 02:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
When you search Artemis or Artemis Program, a wikipedia info box appears but it lists Artemis' first flight in 2024 rather than 2023. How do we fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we have enough information about the crewed landers and suggest we start to create sections for each lander (so far Boeing lander and Blue Origin / Northrop Grumman Lander and Lockheed Lander if they officially submit it's design) We should also maybe rename the section "Human Landing System" since that seems to be NASA's term for the vehicle. -- RundownPear ( talk) 14:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Recent NASA promotional material shows and describes Artemis 2 as a orbital crewed mission. I know in the past it's gone from orbital to free return but have they made a final decision yet? It could be a stupid mistake but it is on the NASA Artemis page so it seems like it wouldn't be overlooked.-- RundownPear ( talk) 18:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Every day we hear more about the missions and hardware that may be involved. From different types of nuclear power that could be used on the surface to the pressurized rover that was mentioned in depth recently, maybe it's time we create an "additional hardware" section or something. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: @ Mattise135: @ Fcrary: @ Hektor: Hello. There have been changes in Wikipedia on the numbering format switching from Arabic to Roman numerals. Lets discuss the issue and reach a consensus before it devolves and page moves are done unilaterally.
The homepage of the Artemis program does not use Roman numerals [4], and their page was updated on Aug. 8, 2019. Where is this new push changing the numerals is coming from? If some NASA publications use both Arabic and Roman numerals interchangeably, what will Wikipedia use and why? Thanks, -- Rowan Forest ( talk) 18:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am supporting to use Arabic numerals in the formal contexts. -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 13:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not "official" since there has been no official statement about it, and probably never will. The Gemini and Apollo missions also used inconsistent numerals originally, and it looks classy in a mission patch, yet the related Wikipedia articles use Arabic numerals. I found no discussion about it in those pages or at the WP Spaceflight Project archives. I assume it is because for the general public, Arabic numerals are obvious and unambiguous for this encyclopedia. To be clear, I am not against it, but if it is going to be switched, there has to be a reason stronger than someone's perception (including mine). Rowan Forest ( talk) 14:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks like NASA is now consistently using Roman numerals in official sources. I'd prefer to stick with Arabic numerals on the wiki pages for reasons of readability and familiarity, but there's now a genuine argument in support of changing them. Thoughts? - Jadebenn ( talk) 08:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
So, which is crewed and which is uncrewed. Everything I've seen is that Artemis 7 would be an uncrewed 1b flight with the lunar outpost and 8 would be the corresponding crew, but apparently that isn't right. Anyone know for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RundownPear ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The Artemis logo recreation used for the image for this Wikipedia page has a noticeable error in it. The Recreation Used: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Artemis_program_%28contrast_wordmark%29.svg/1024px-Artemis_program_%28contrast_wordmark%29.svg.png Offical Logo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Artemis_identity_moon_mars.jpg Despite the Colours being flattened in the recreation, The one difference i'd like to point out is the lack of the gap between the upper part of the red streak on the left side and the A, the other gap on the logo is present on the recreation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woog24 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I had added some references to the DST in the SLS and proposed missions sections. So far it is unclear whether the DST would be part of Artemis or not but it definitely relies on infrastructure set up by the program such as the Gateway, Orion, SLS, and Ion drives being developed for lunar operation. I think its appropriate to keep the reference in the proposed section since it would line up with the amount of SLS rockets NASA is going order but I suppose ti should be kept out of the main article, any input? -- RundownPear ( talk) 14:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I always thought it was weird that HERACLES is mentioned in the article. I understand that the mission would utilize the Gateway and Orion but is it still happening? I can't find anything about it still being a sample return. I've seen articles about it being repurposed as a cargo lander for a pressurized moon rover. Perhaps it's time we did a little HERACLES overhaul?-- RundownPear ( talk) 13:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The article now has a whole new section on the "Moon Mission 2024 Manifest". It isn't referenced, and the only things we really know is that Eric Berger at Ars Technica reported it, basically as an unsourced rumor, and that at least three NASA officials (NASA's press secretary, Administrator and Associate Administrator for Human Exploration) have all said that this manifest is not correct and does not represent the agency's plans for Artemis. Isn't putting this in the Wikipedia article a little premature? Or, at least, putting it in without lots and lots of text warning readers that it probably isn't reliable information? Fcrary ( talk) 23:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Doug Loverro, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, has stated that they are phasing the Gateway out of the initial 2024 mission. This obviously changes a lot. The new plan is to start assembling it in 2026 to allocate more money towards the HLS. Should we wait for the official plan coming in the "near future", or should we start to change the article now. -- RundownPear ( talk) 15:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The White House mandated a return to the lunar surface by 2024, but the rocket and spacecraft NASA plans to use to get astronauts to the moon has been plagued by oversight and performance issues; the Mission could cost $50 billion.
X1\ ( talk) 06:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The article states that there were some plans, as of mid-2019, for the Moon Cruiser to be built by European nation states by c. 2025. No secondary sources since show this is active and funded, although it exists on the contractors primary source webpage? Have we got anything that shows this is more than talk-talk, like so many spaceflight-related conceptual designs. They loom large in their proposers (aspirational) plans; but often fail in finding full funding to get built and tested. What is the current status of the funding and plans for Moon Cruiser, from the ESA's point of view? Any current sources that show that? N2e ( talk) 04:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
So to discuss what someone brought up on the page I think the number of EUS stages is somewhat relevant since the mission profile drastically changes if the Orion is on a CPS or EUS. Also should we add commercial vehicles launching payloads like Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, New Glenn, etc...? -- RundownPear ( talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Ken Bowersox (acting human spaceflight head at NASA) made a presentation to the National Academy of Science/Engineering's "Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Joint Spring Meeting 2020" on 8-11 June 2020. Some of the Artemis material was new, hadn't seen before. Includes a two-slide graphic of the overall Artemis roadmap as it exists in mid-2020, and several slides summarizing the current Artemis HLS design project team's designs. As its from NASA, that stuff is usually public domain so can be used to improve the article. Here's the link to the NAS web page with Ken Bowersox pdf of presentation slides. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 11:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The current table displays any HLS related contract with either accepted or rejected. A lot of the info were simply studies that were funded yet not continued. The only really rejected concepts were for the full HLS systems including Boeing and some Italian company I don't remember. I will try and play around with it a bit and divide it into a study table and actual HLS table. Any input? RundownPear ( talk) 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A potential source : Artemis Plan - NASA's Lunar Exploration Program Overview. Hektor ( talk) 11:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking a partners section with a chart showing the nations participating and what they are contributing. I think that could be good rather than going through the whole article and piecing it together. -- RundownPear ( talk) 02:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The video is created by NASA and is from their YouTube channel. The video is really helpful if anybody wants a quick summary of the project. I don't know if adding this video will clutter the page, if you are one of the author of the article please watch the video and add it if you think it will be a valuable addition. Thanks -- Eatcha 11:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I changed the initial launch date of the Artemis program from 2021 to 2017 due to error in the title section. In the history section it explained that it started in 2017 with the signing of Space Policy Directive 1 signed by President Trump. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eth132489 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
There won't be separate ascent/descent/transfer elements, Starship is a single entity. There will be refueling flights for Starship in Earth orbit, however. -- mfb ( talk) 09:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the information in the HLS table for the "National Team" and "Dynetics" to accurately reflect the selection of those two consortia for nearly $1 billion of NASA funding, even though they were not selected in the downselect announced in April 2021. The info is good.
The color is odd. I just left the color the same as it was previously, when the incorrect information "Not selected" was input into the table.
If anyone knows how to fix wiki table colors, have at it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The current state of the article reflects the state of the Artemis program as seen from the outside: a loose and incoherent collection of legacy projects with only a vague overall plan. The reader cannot tell how an astronaut will get from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon and back, which is more or less the first stated goal of the project. I'm an outsider, so I'm not sure exactly how it's supposed to work, which means I probably cannot write a coherent overview section. What needs to happen, in what order, to "land a crew on the on the moon and safely return them, before 2025?" What other elements of Artemis are underway but that do not (much) contribute to this goal?) What is a good set of references for this? - Arch dude ( talk) 15:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed the 3 December 2020 line from the CLPS table. It was unreferenced and also not mentioned in the text. I found a ref for the contracts, [8] but it does not mention CLPS. If we do need to put it back in, we need all 5 contracts, not just one. - Arch dude ( talk) 17:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Space suits section needs update for mid 2021 GAO concerns about schedule, cost, and how NASA is managing the work. - Rod57 ( talk) 10:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The HLS section is big and is getting messy, and it will be getting bigger. It needs to be reorganized in any event, but I would prefer to split it out and then reorganize it. Like most of this article and most of the space articles about current programs, it is currently bogged down in contract details and history instead of providing the user with a crisp description of the technology and the mission. - Arch dude ( talk) 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, I split it out. - Arch dude ( talk) 03:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)